Creationism.

[TomCat39]

Now before you go dismissing this thread, let me get this unconventional creationist concept on paper first. Please read this odd idea first, then reply as you wish.

I'm sure most have seen something depicting how the world gets smaller and smaller and smaller and vice versa. And how it all seems to be similiar. By that I mean the molecule resembles a galaxy, and an atom resembles a solar system etc. And you can keep on going smaller and smaller and vice versa.

Okay, we can't see beyond our universe at this time and we are limited to just how small we can see. So in theory it's possible there is life, even intelligent life in a molecule. But it is soooo small we can't see it. It's smaller than sub atomic particles if it exists.

Now lets go the other way. How do we know our universe isn't a molecule in something much much larger. A chair maybe, or a piece of some rock deep on some planet. Really we don't being we can't see beyond our universe.

Now here is a concept that came to me one day. What if our universe is part of some perpetual energy machine. The theory of big bang as I understand it is that our universe explodes out until all energy is expelled leaving only gravity. Gravity in turn pulls everything back to the center to such a degree that by the end of the cycle, all matter is compressed into the tiniest space possible where it turns itself inside out and explodes again. A basic waveform pattern. Anyways. How do we know that our universe with it's forever cycling pattern isn't part of some being's perpetual energy machine. Thus our universe was "created" but that being has no inkling of our existence just as we have none of them.

What do you think of that "creationism" concept?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

The Big Bang Theory doesn't account for the end of the universe. There are however other theories that do. The one you are referring to is the Big Crunch theory. This has largely been abandoned as it is largely inconsistent with what we have observed.

[KingAl]

A whole bunch of stuff could be true. But chances are it probably isn't.

[Feud]

It was my understanding that the expansion of the universe is, according to our observations, accelerating.

[TomCat39]

Thank you for the clarifications stewsburntmonkey and feud. I wasn't aware of which theory it depicted nor current day observations of our universe.

It rather settles that as a little probability concept.

Thank you again.

[xander]

To add one more log to the fire, your "theory" really isn't. In the scientific sense, a theory should be testable, falsifiable, and should have explanatory power. When I say testable, I mean that you should be able to perform an experiment or observe something in nature that could either confirm or negate your theory. When I say falsifiable, I mean that there ought to be some kind of evidence that would definitely negate your theory (it may or may not exist, but if it is found, then the theory is false). When I say that a theory has explanatory power, I mean that it makes predictions about the universe (and we get back to testability---if a theory makes predictions, then those predictions can be confirmed or negated by future events, hence testability).

Your creation story has none of those things, thus it is not a theory.

xander

[TomCat39]

Your creation story has none of those things, thus it is not a theory.

xander

I believe I purposely avoided calling it a theory. If I did call it a theory then please forgive my error. I thought I called it a concept, and have been thinking of it as such the whole time.

I see my error. first line. thank you. will fix.

[Imperius Rex]

Okay, we can't see beyond our universe at this time ...

Well, of course not. Considering the universe is considered infinite or at least contain many (a solid number would be ridiculous to put) galaxies. Any other universe's would be considered other/alternate dimensions by most astrophysicists.

If perhaps you were referring to our galaxy, that being the milky way galaxy, then you would be wrong in your statement as they have seen past our galaxy, and technically so does everyone on earth every night.


Now with your cell/molecule idea, if you think about the universe as a cell within the human body then I still don't see it as being creationism from a higher power standpoint. cause frankly that's all creationism pretty much is... in essence God snapped his fingers and we came to be, a universe pre-created, humans pre-created, life pre-created. However your idea fits more inline with the primordial soup theory of evolution, whereas life came to be from other atoms combining, Which in essence is how human life is created between a sperm and an egg.

Once again i stand in saying.. If God created the universe, who created God?

[TomCat39]

Being that there is a center to our universe and as far as I know, an outside edge (which is still expanding) that is definitely finite at any given moment in time. The number maybe changing as the universe grows, still doesn't make it infinite.

And what I said as a concept is the idea of our universe being some chunk of matter in a much larger device called a perpetual energy device. Like some other beings power plant, and our universe is their plutonium or whatever.

My concept didn't suggest we are a cell in some other creature, even though, on this level of thinking.... We could be.

[NeatNit]

...
in essence God snapped his fingers and we came to be, a universe pre-created, humans pre-created, life pre-created. However your idea fits more inline with the primordial soup theory of evolution, whereas life came to be from other atoms combining, Which in essence is how human life is created between a sperm and an egg.

Once again i stand in saying.. If God created the universe, who created God?

Religion = War, be it a world war, an insult fight or even an argument in a forum (this forums possible arguments are definitely not what I'm talking about).

I mean it. Show me a war that WASN'T caused by religion. You can't. Every war was, in its core, caused by different beliefs.


Now, to contribut a little to the topic, I too have thought a few times about how we may very well be a tiny meaningless part of a much larger universe. But say this is true - isn't light waay too slow for that larger universe?
I'd rather not overthink this - we are here and we enjoy being here. Knowledge of 'the bigger thing' is never going to make any of our lives any better.

[Xocrates]

I mean it. Show me a war that WASN'T caused by religion. You can't. Every war was, in its core, caused by different beliefs.

Different beliefs? Yes. Different religions? No.

Examples? Let's see... World War 1? World War 2?

[NeatNit]

I mean it. Show me a war that WASN'T caused by religion. You can't. Every war was, in its core, caused by different beliefs.

Different beliefs? Yes. Different religions? No.

Examples? Let's see... World War 1? World War 2?

Hey, I never said 'different religion'.


But think about it - if people of the past hadn't seeked an answer to the world, inventing gods, supernatural things and other stupid things, most wars never would have happened.

If I was asked to suggest one thing that would make this world a better place then it would undoubtedly be one of these two options:

1. Make every single human on earth atheist.
2. Get me a supercomputer and every non-EA PC game out until now, plus DNF.

[Cooper42]

I mean it. Show me a war that WASN'T caused by religion. You can't. Every war was, in its core, caused by different beliefs.

Different beliefs? Yes. Different religions? No.

Examples? Let's see... World War 1? World War 2?

Hey, I never said 'different religion'.

Regardless of the inconsistency of your argument (all wars caused by religion, or different beliefs which are/aren't the same thing) I would say that's a very idealist way of thinking about wars.

Human history is full of wars which are propelled not by some notion of two sides at disagreement, but for many, many more reasons. In the past, war has been simply a manner of establishing and maintaining domination over nearby territories. Some early feudal systems relied upon war as a core feature of their social and political machinations. Wars fought by Imperialistic regimes are similarly about domination, and, in capitalist societies, there is a good argument that 19th Century Imperialism was a means of expanding markets in order to soak up the inevitable excess of capitalist modes of production.

Even now, the war in Iraq has proven to be a fantastic opportunity for the US government to divert public funds to the private sector - plumping out various sectors such as oil, defence, construction and infrastructure. Despite acknowledgements of the cost of the war, wars can be economically (re)productive by allowing the mobilisation of public money within conservative regimes. There are also arguments about the social and political implications of a 'nation at war' and the need for contemporary states to maintain authority by conjuring a malevolent 'outside' against which nation-building can happen.

It was not as simple as 'we don't like what Saddam does, we'll go to war with him.'

How far and how nuanced you want to take those and other arguments depends. But, suffice to say, wars are never as simple as different beliefs. Such a view presupposes an equal starting ground upon which two parties mutually agree to disagree in the form of armed combat - which is overly idealistic. Beliefs may come into it, but they only part of much wider concerns.

Edit: Also, Atheism =!= lack of conviction or belief. That would be a form of nihilistic agnosticism. Moreover, Atheism doesn't mean a lack of conflict. The history of communist and anarchist struggles (which are both usually 'atheistic ideals') bear witness to that. Hence, everyone being atheist would not halt wars and conflict.

[xander]

Being that there is a center to our universe and as far as I know, an outside edge (which is still expanding)...

Incorrect. Modern cosmological models do not posit that there is a center or edge to the universe. Or, alternatively, every point is the center of the universe, as where ever you stand, every other part of the universe is moving away from you.

xander

[TomCat39]

Being that there is a center to our universe and as far as I know, an outside edge (which is still expanding)...

Incorrect. Modern cosmological models do not posit that there is a center or edge to the universe. Or, alternatively, every point is the center of the universe, as where ever you stand, every other part of the universe is moving away from you.

xander

Doesn't this negate the big bang theory? I thought the bang origin was the center fo the universe, and since it's exapnding out from that origin, also has an edge. Or do I totally misunderstand what the big bang is all about?